Nick Pope Revisited

 

Let’s start again. I was a little disturbed about the allegations slung at Nick Pope by Dr. David Clarke recently and that Nick Pope had not had the opportunity to respond to them. I also want to point out that I have no dog in this fight and was looking for a little fairness in all this. I expected some pushback, but, in this world today, who wouldn’t expect some pushback. I have now heard from a number of others about all this.

First, I suppose, is to answer the question of why Dr. David Clarke would bring this up now, if the issue had been settled decades earlier. According to what he told me; the simple answer is that he didn’t. He was responding to a question asked by Martin Willis during Willis’ podcast.

Nick Redfern - Photo copyright by
Kevin Randle

Second, all those who emailed me seemed to object to my use of the term “allegations” against Nick Pope. All who emailed me said that there had been no allegations, just statement of facts. One of those facts, an important one, had to do with Nick Pope’s duty at the MoD and whether or not he, Nick Pope, had conducted official UFO investigations. While serving in the MoD, Nick Pope had other duties and devoted only 20% of his salary to dealing with UFOs. In other words, the majority of his time went to other things. His UFO duties involved taking down the initial information about a UFO sighting and then passing it on to another organization. To quote Nick Redfern (and now you know why I kept saying Nick Pope), back in 1994, Nick Pope told Nick Redfern, “There is no specific ‘UFO budget,’ except the staff costs, i.e. around 20% of my salary, together with a tiny percent of some other salaries, reflecting my line management’s supervisory role.”

For those interested, here is a link to an article an Nick Redfern published a number of years ago that dealt with some of this:

https://mysteriousuniverse.org/2018/08/u-k-government-ufo-research-the-real-picture/

That, of course, does not rule out Nick Pope having investigated UFO sightings. It suggests that there wasn’t much of a budget for any investigation. It could be said that the initial intake of information over the telephone is part of an investigation, though certainly not the most important aspect of it. However, there is additional information that is relevant to the discussion.

David Clarke noted in communication with me, “Sec(AS) [Secretariat Air Staff] where Nick worked 1991 – 1993 was not authorized or funded to investigate UFO reports.”

That seems to be fairly definitive but there is more relevant information. According to what David Clarke provided, “This is set out clearly in the attached policy document from 1997, written by Pope's line manager, that says any follow-up investigations that were required were carried out by the DI55 intelligence staff and/or the Royal Air Force.”

In still another document that came from official sources, and of which I now have a copy, it says:

Mr. Pope at one time served as EO (Band D) in the Secretariat Air Staff [a junior civil servant grade] ... [and] left Sec(AS) in 1994...and his knowledge of this issue, other than from publicly available sources, must be regarded as dated. Mr. Pope elected to describe his position as the "Head of the MoD's UFO Project", a term entirely of his own invention, and he has used his experience and information he gathered (frequently going beyond the official remit of his position) to develop a parallel career as a pundit on the topic, including writing several books, some purportedly non-fiction. Mr. Pope constantly puts himself forward in various parts of the media, solicited and unsolicited, as an "expert" (despite his lack of recent knowledge about the work carried on in the branch concerned) and seeks credit amongst other aficionados for having "forced" the MoD to reveal its "secret" files on the subject. The latter is far from the truth...

Finally, in what might be the final straw here, David Clarke provided the following, “In another document from the same period, the head of the Air Historical Branch (RAF) is even more forthright, saying ‘Far from accurately representing the Department's position, he [Pope] has sought to embellish the truth at almost every turn’.”

I suppose, that if you wish to be generous, you could say that taking the initial report and asking questions about it could be considered part of an official investigation. But that is really stretching a point and doesn’t accurately reflect the situation. The actual investigation into the reports that demanded additional work was carried about by other British government organizations and Nick Pope had virtually nothing to do with that.

But the real problem here is what Nick Pope published on his own website. Any errors, embellishments, alterations of fact can’t be blamed on the webmaster. Nick Pope approved the content. This biography said:

Nick Pope ran the British Government’s UFO project. From 1991 to 1994 he researched and investigated UFOs, alien abductions, crop circles and other strange phenomena, leading the media to call him the real Fox Mulder. His government background and his level-headed views have made him the media, film and TV industry’s go-to guy when it comes to UFOs, the unexplained and conspiracy theories.

Another aspect of this was that Nick Pope had apparently accused David Clarke of plagiarism and of being a needy, dishonest ufologist. The direct quote from David Clarke is, “Nick Pope has called me dishonest, a liar, a nut and a serial plagiarizer - despite providing absolutely no evidence for any of these things all of which are seriously defamatory.”

But this particular allegation has been debunked by Hayley Stevens a post to her blog which you can read here:

https://hayleyisaghost.co.uk/a-needy-dishonest-ufologist-revisiting-nick-popes-claims/

I mean you can disagree with someone but this is unreasonable. There is additional information contained in this post that sheds additional light on the problem. Some of the sources or documents she mentions I have seen and have copies for verification.

Philip Mantle

I’m not sure if this is piling on, or if it is relevant information. As noted above, Nick Pope claimed that he had investigated claims of alien abduction, crop circle formations or animal mutilations as part of his job at the MoD. Philip Mantle supplied the following information:

Just read this from UK documentary producer Matt Quinn. This was posted in the comments section of the martin Willis podcast:

From that reference Phillippe... "From 1991 to 1994 Mr. Pope worked as a civil servant within Secretariat (air staff). He undertook a wide range of secretariat tasks relating to central policy, political and parliamentary aspects of non-operational RAF activity. Part of his duties related to the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena reported to the Department to see if they had any defence significance." This doesn't actually contradict what David Clark has said, and what has been 'common knowledge' for a very long time... it also completely fails to support in any way, Nick Pope's ridiculously-aggrandised claims... But in reality? I can only paraphrase Martha and the Muffins...

" _From nine to five, he had to spend his time at work His job was very boring as an office clerk The only thing that helped him pass the time away Was knowing he'd be back at Echo Beach someday_ " As we're 'buying' UK government publications (when it suits) do a search with the UK's National Archive service... And I do very much encourage you to do your own legwork; don't just take my word for it. I can tell you (as a media professional) that when 'Open Skies Closed Minds' was published it was generally received by the press as highly entertaining bollocks... riding a wave that was well in motion at the time. Just a 'jolly japes' type romp through an over-egged fantasy world... Good copy, bit of a laugh. But Nick Pope always had more in common with Dilbert than Mulder. The woman who got Nick Pope's job after him is called Kerry Philpott, and is on record stating there was no "strange phenomena section" at the MOD and that whilst Nick had been an 'EO' - Junior management grade administrator - just as she now was, she wrote "neither he nor indeed am I the head of any 'UFO' section"...

There is a chap called James Easton who is fairly well known here in Scotland as something of a 'UFOlogist'. Way back in 1999 he wrote an open letter to the MOD which posed many questions about Nick's duties and the MOD's locus in relation to various 'Fortean' phenomena... The response he got was. “The main duties of the post concern non-operational RAF activities overseas and diplomatic clearance policy for military flights abroad. A small percentage of time is spent dealing with reports from the public about alleged ‘UFO’ sightings and associated public correspondence. The MoD has not investigated a claim of alien abduction, crop circle formations or animal mutilation.” I'm sure it's now well over a decade since David Clark put that information up on his own site - over 20 since James got the response he did from the MOD and I honestly cannot tell you of anyone (except the incredibly non-credible) to whom that was in any way, shape or form a surprise. David Clark hasn't lied. - You don't have to like the guy, or not be disappointed at Nick. But David hasn't lied.  

This then, is the other side of the coin. I provided Nick Pope with a platform for his comments, and it is only fair that I supply the others with a similar courtesy. I’m inclined to say that the reader should take his or her own view of the material and decide what to believe. However, that is a somewhat weasel-worded claim for me to make. I waded into this swamp because I believed that Nick Pope should be heard, but now, having seen the other side, and although I think of Nick Pope as a friend (and can say the same about Philip Mantle and Nick Redfern), I must come down on their side of the fence.

What we see here is just another of the nasty fights that erupt in this field, though this one played out in the UK rather than here in America. If you care to comment, then you must be prepared for the consequences of that commentary. It had seemed to me, originally, that this was a bit of a fight over semantics, but it has, of course, ranged far beyond that. I don’t like the name calling or the allegations of plagiarism, having had that directed at me for a long time, but sometimes you just have to make a stand.

Here then, is what I believe to be the whole truth of the matter. And while I could say that I wish I had not involved myself in it, I would rather say that I think here is enough information that we all know the truth.

Following is one of those documents that seems to clarify the situation. I append it here for those who wish to see a little more of the evidence.

One of the documents that seems
to refute some of Nick Pope's
claims.

Did Nick Pope Investigate UFOs for the UK MoD?

 

In the UFO community, there are always disagreements and sometimes allegations are slung that have no basis in fact. I have been called a shill for the Air Force, I have been accused of working for Hector Quintanilla and Project Blue Book, and that I am an anti-abduction propagandist who writes fiction. The only truth in all that is that I do write fiction including science fiction but does that really disqualify me from UFO investigation? Wouldn’t my background in the military and my training in various fields suggest I can bring some important insights to UFO investigation?

Nick Pope

I say all this because Dr. David Clarke has again suggested that Nick Pope, sometimes described as Britain’s Fox Mulder (because the news media loves to reduce everything to the lowest common denominator) didn’t investigate anything officially. Clarke told Martin Willis, during Willis’ recent podcast, “There was a UFO desk when he was an incumbent for three years but he was just one of dozens of people who did that task and he didn’t actually investigate anything.”

Clarke went on to say that Nick Pope merely received the reports and that he then filed them. The people responsible for the investigations was the Defence Intelligence Staff, DISS. It was their job to conduct the UFO investigations that were believed to have some sort of military significance.

Clarke said, “I’ve interviewed most of the people who worked on this subject in DISS at that time and they tell me ‘well, Nick Pope didn’t have any involvement in this. We did the investigations, we didn’t share information with them because we didn’t trust them.” He meant that the civilian servants tended to leak information into the public arena which is why they didn’t trust them.

Of course, this really is nothing new. Clarke has raised these allegations in the past and Nick has refuted them in the past. This sort of thing seems to dot the UFO landscape. It doesn’t matter how many times the allegations are challenged; they seem to pop up again and again.

Philip Mantle, the force behind Flying Disk Press, and someone who can’t be seen as a skeptic, wrote to a number of UFO researcher around the world this last week:

Over the past few days social media has been buzzing regarding allegations made by Dr. David Clarke. Dr. Clarke was interviewed by Martin Willis on his podcast on the 18^th of November. At around halfway through this one hour interview Martin asked David about Nick Pope. As most of you will know Mr. Pope claims to have run the UK government’s UFO project and had officially investigated UFOs, crop circles and alien abductions as part of his MoD job. Dr. Clarke publicly stated that his is not the case and that Mr. Pope undertook no such work and there never was nor is there a UK government ‘UFO PROJECT’…

Dr. David Clarke is not the only source of information regarding Nick Pope. Personally I have been making my own enquiries which are still on-going. Although my enquiries are not yet complete I have seen and heard enough to convince me that Dr. Clarke is indeed correct. As a result just yesterday [November 25] I removed Nick Pope’s foreword for the revised edition of my book “WITHOUT CONSENT”.

Of course Nick Pope denies these allegations but now the ball is [simply] in his court. Can Nick Pope provide any official documentation that states he ran the UK government’s UFO Project? Well the MoD also claims that he did no such thing. If he can’t then is this the beginning of the end of Nick Pope?

Still, there is some smoke, but is there any fire. I particularly liked the idea that Nick present some sort of documentation. I have had the same sort of requests made of me when people wondered if I had been completely honest about my background. I provided the documentation, though a couple of times it took some convincing for the controlling agencies to release the data. I always attempt to supply the information requested to stop the rumors.

Nick Pope

I have also found that those who can’t provide the evidence tend to come up with the “I’m not going to dignify that request with any sort of response defense.” I’ve always taken that to mean that they can’t provide the evidence so they just dodge the question with this non response… Or they fall back on the old the records have been altered or have been destroyed. Huge red flags when dealing with these sorts of allegations.

I reached out to Nick Pope, who was, of course, aware of this latest brouhaha. Within minutes, I had an answer from Nick. He mentioned that this allegation had been around for years and it had been answered time and again. He pointed out that he had been interviewed on a number of high-level television, radio, and newspaper reporters and had appeared in numerous documentaries. He suggested that those reporters had vetted him and found his claims to be credible…

Well, given the state of journalism today, and knowing that documentary producers often have their own agendas, I wasn’t particularly swayed by that argument. Some might have checked, but I figure most hadn’t. They just believed what they were told because that was easier than doing any real investigation.

That wasn’t all he said. He provided a link to an official document that seemed to underscore what he claimed. You can read that here:

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060418/text/60418154.htm

If you scroll down slightly, you’ll find a question that was asked in the British parliament that seemed to suggest that Nick did investigate UFOs. It is not a ringing endorsement, but does suggest that Nick was telling the truth about his involvement, officially, in UFO investigations.

So, to answer Philip Mantle’s question, it seems that Nick did supply an official document that states he ran the project. For those who don’t want to go to all that trouble, here is that brief statement:

From 1991 to 1994 Mr. Pope worked as a civil servant within Secretariat (air staff). He undertook a wide range of secretariat tasks relating to central policy, political and parliamentary aspects of non-operational RAF activity. Part of his duties related to the investigation of unidentified aerial phenomena reported to the Department to see if they had any defence significance.

As I say, not exactly a ringing endorsement, but it the same sort of endorsement we’ve seen for Louis Elizondo and the AATIP project he might have run. We are now in a world of secrets and bureaucracies and double speak so it is hard to define the truth. At the moment we have no real answer, other than Nick did supply official documents but it didn’t go quite as far as I would have liked.

That’s not all. Since the bar was set very low, it wasn’t very difficult to overcome. Other official documents show that Nick did investigate UFOs while serving at the MoD. You can see some of them here:

https://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/UK/defe-24-1972.pdf

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/ufos/UK/defe-24-2086.pdf

As a final bit of evidence, Nick was interviewed for a documentary and according to tht documentary, was the spokesman for the MoD UFO program. For those interested, you can watch it here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2klCuyv5Tg

I will note, for those who don’t wish to watch the whole thing, that the relevant part begins at the fifteen minute mark.

Nick also wrote, “I don't think there's rivalry between David Clarke and I. I remember Clarke from the British UFO Research Association, so we're not rivals - merely people who come at this subject from different sides of the fence: him as a ufologist, me as someone who's looked at the phenomenon as part of my government job. Obviously, it's frustrating when someone misunderstands or misrepresents my government work, but the lie that I didn't investigate UFOs for the MoD was nailed years ago, and obviously the official website of British parliament is an unimpeachable source. QED.”

This whole thing might just boil down to one man making claims about another and that man providing evidence that those claims are false. Given that this has played out long before, this might just be much ado about nothing.

A New Roswell Solution?

Well, we have a new solution to the Roswell case. No, it’s not a weather balloon as the Army Air Forces claimed in 1947 and no, it’s not a Project Mogul balloon that many skeptics and the Air Force have claimed, starting with Robert Todd in the early 1990s (or late 1980s) but something called a satelloon. This was, is, a huge polyethylene balloon that had been covered with a thin layer of aluminum to enhance the reflective properties and create a passive communications satellite or something like that.

Dr. Bob W. Gross appeared this last week (June 12) on Martin Willis’ show, UFO Live. Gross, who had lived in New Mexico from 2001 to 2010 and who traveled all over the state, thought that he had the solution to the Roswell case. Naturally, I was skeptical. You can listen here (Roswell begins in the second hour):

https://podcastufo.com/podcast/306-dr-bob-w-gross/

And you can read more about his theories here:

An Extraterrestrial Flying Disk Crashed Near Roswell in 1947: Not a UFO

An Extraterrestrial Flying Disk Crashed Near Roswell in 1947: Not a UFO -PT2-

Here’s the problem as I see it. Gross has cherry-picked his evidence to bolster his theory. He talked of the debris field and the metallic residue that had been collected there. These were fragments of one of these aluminumized balloons that had exploded and rained down the debris or so he claimed. Apparently, they can explode. See:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4308/ch6.htm

But the problem is that he has currently failed to mention the other debris found there as described to me by Bill Brazel. Brazel said:

There was only three items involved. Something on the order of balsa wood and something on the order of heavy gauge monofilament fishing line and a little piece of… it wasn’t really aluminum foil and it wasn’t really lead foil but it was on that order…

Bill Brazel. Photo copyright by
Kevin Randle.

While the piece of aluminum-like material could have been the remains of one of these satelloons, the other two pieces were not. According to Brazel, you could shine a light in one end and have it come out the other, or, in other words, he was talking about fiber optics. And the balsa like material was so strong that he couldn’t get a shaving using his pocket knife.

Gross also said that these satelloons took on a disk shape, at least the early versions did and that some of them were tested in New Mexico, hidden in the Mogul arrays. In my many communications with Charles Moore, among others, nothing like that was ever mentioned, and I suspect that if the Air Force could have connected these two events together, they would have done so.

Charles Moore. Photo copyright by
Kevin Randle.

The real problem with this theory is that I can find nothing to support the idea that the testing was going on in New Mexico in 1947. In fact, there is quite the history available on the topic and the research around it. You can find more about all this and Project Echo satelloons here:

https://greg.org/archive/2007/10/07/the-satelloons-of-project-echo-must-find-satelloons.html

And the history of these “Giant Spheres” here:

http://cabinetmagazine.org/issues/27/foer.php

And here:

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/02/nasas-early-inflatable-spacecraft-the-satelloon/71362/

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100302165926.htm

And to confuse the issue even more, or maybe clarify some of the research into it, take a look at this:

http://badufos.blogspot.com/2017/09/another-nonsensical-explanation-for.html#comment-form

While I can find nothing that suggests any of this was going on in 1947, Gross alluded to witnesses and documents that could do that. If true, then he might have something. However, it is difficult to ignore the information about the debris provided by Brazel and Jesse Marcel, Sr., and several others who handled it in 1947, which doesn’t fit with his descriptions.

And, while Gross said that he found no testimony of anyone seeing the flying saucer crash, there are those who reported seeing a more intact structure, not on the debris field, but on a secondary site some distance away. 

No, the problem is that all the information that I have been able to find does not put any of these strange balloons in New Mexico in 1947. Unless he can do that, this falls into the same category of the anthropomorphic dummies that Captain James McAndrew used in his attempt to explain the bodies reported by some of the witnesses. The timing is just flat wrong. If the dummies weren’t being dropped in 1947 and the satelloons weren’t being tested in 1947, then the explanations fail at that point. We must wait, however, for Gross to provide the additional documentation and witnesses that he claims to have before providing a final analysis. That will be coming in his book.

Zamora vs People

Last night, while appearing on Martin Willis’ Podcast UFO (see http://podcastufo.com/about/) to talk about Encounters in the Desert, I had a chance to speak with Ray Stanford. I believe Ray is the last surviving investigator or witness who was on the site of the Socorro UFO landing in the days that

Martin Willis

followed. He provided some interesting insight to what he had seen and done but there was one point that he made, which is that Lonnie Zamora had never used the word “people” to refer to the figures he had seen near the landed craft.

I did know, based on my research, that FBI agent Arthur Byrnes had suggested to Zamora that he might not want to mention those creatures because he might find himself the butt of jokes. UFOs in the sky were fine, and landed craft were okay, but the actual sighting of the crew on the outside was just too hard for some to accept. This gave rise to the idea that Zamora had only seen white coveralls in the distance and had seen no real detail.

While I suggested that the official file did provide a number of words for the crew, Ray insisted that people wasn’t one of them. He objected strongly to that word, though I’m not sure why. He did say that in his discussions with Zamora, only the word “figures” had been used.

As they often say, “Let’s go to the video tape,” which, of course, doesn’t exactly apply here but we can go the documents created at the time. What do they say about this?

Coral and Jim Lorenzen had been in Socorro within 48 hours of the landing and had the opportunity to interview Zamora. In the May 1964 issue of The A.P.R.O. Bulletin, she wrote that she had asked Zamora about what he had seen. He said he hadn’t seen any “little men,” which is not the word people but does move us beyond “figures.”

When Lorenzen pointed out that he had already described them in the press and that description had been published, he expanded on it, saying that they looked like “young boys” or “small adults.” I will go out on a limb here and point out that the quotation marks are used in that article suggesting that they are the words of Zamora. Still not people, but moving us even closer.

In the Project Blue Book files there are various reports written by a number of men. In one of those documents, dated May 13, 1964, written just over two weeks after the event, it says, “At this point he saw two people in white coveralls…” That moves us directly to the use of the word. The document was written by Colonel Eric T. de Jonckheere. His name surfaces in a number of reports of UFOs besides the one in Socorro.

But the use of the term is not in quotation marks and it could be argued that de Jonckheere had interpreted what Zamora said to mean people although he hadn’t used that specific word. Fair enough.

In a report written by Major William Connor, who has been identified as the Public Information Officer at Kirtland AFB but whose job was probably a bit more significant, wrote in his report that Zamora said, “The only time I saw these two persons was when I stopped… These persons appeared normal in shape – but possible they were small adults or large kids.”

In another document, either written by Zamora, or dictated by him, he said, “Saw two people in white coveralls very close to the object. One of these persons seemed to turn and look straight at my car and seemed startled…”

Although it was argued that these weren’t exactly Zamora’s words, they are in quotation marks that suggest that they were. In that document, which is a partial transcript of what Zamora had told those first investigations, it seems that he did use “people” to describe the beings.

Other documents, however, seem to cloud the issue. T/Sgt David Moody, the Air Force investigator on the scene, wrote in his undated report, “…it [the craft] appeared to be a thing on four pronged legs and the two white things (described as coveralls) were no longer visible.”

This, of course, moves us away from people, but by the time Moody had arrived, Zamora had become reluctant to talk about seeing anything at all. But the newspapers were not reluctant to print stories about the landing. The Alamogordo Daily News reported that Zamora “saw two ‘men’ adjacent to it wearing white suits.”

The Albuquerque Tribune, on April 25, the day after the sighting, reported, “Moving close he [Zamora] saw two figures…”

Interestingly, the Albuquerque Journal reported on April 27, “Zamora denied that he had seen any little creatures around the object…”

Later in that same article, however, Zamora talked about seeing white coveralls near the craft. According to the article, “…whether anything was in them he did not know.”

Now we have moved from a debate about whether Zamora ever said “people” in relation to the figures he had seen to a denial that he had seen anything other than the craft and white coveralls. This, of course, reflects the confusion of the time and the suggestion by Byrnes that Zamora might be better off he said nothing about the alien beings.

The El Paso Herald-Post, reinforced the white coveralls without anything in them on April 27. According to that article, “Zamora said he also saw what looked like white coveralls but could not tell if anyone – or anything – was in them.”

Finally, the Socorro Defensor Chieftain reported that Zamora has seen two persons near the object in a gully. Given that it was the local newspaper, you would think that one of their reporters or the editor would have interviewed Zamora, but there are no direct quotes from him, though others, such as Captain Richard Holder are quoted. The only thing about the beings in quotation marks are the words, “child-like.’”

The point here, maybe unnecessarily, is that according to the documentation from 1964, within days of the sighting, Zamora had used a number of words to describe the beings he saw. One of those documents, in the Project Blue Book files, is a transcript of Zamora’s testimony and while it might not have been tape recorded, it is a transcript of his words. He said they were “people.” He also said they were “child-like,” and said they were “persons,” but he also said they were figures, and it is clear that after he talked with the government officials, he said that he had only seen “white coveralls.”

But the real point, one that is missed as we drive deep into the weeds, is that Zamora said he saw two beings, two humanoids, standing near the craft and that once they returned inside, it lifted off with a roar. We can argue about the precise words, but that only hides the real issue. Zamora was talking about something that was very strange and it frightened him badly.

You can read the full Socorro landing story and review the words of Lonnie Zamora here:

https://www.amazon.com/Encounter-Desert-Alien-Contact-Socorro/dp/1632651130/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1508096455&sr=8-1&keywords=encounter+in+the+desert